Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article ,
> "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
>> Jeff Campbell wrote:
>>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>>>> Bob Koehler wrote:
>>>>> In article <6jf3muF31qiqU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu
>>>>> (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>>>>>> Of what real value and at what cost?
>>>>> Of the same real value of all basic research: you can't predict
>>>>> ahead of time which will result in practicle results when.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could have asked the same of any research that led to anything
>>>>> we have now. Or you could go back to 50% child mortality.
>>>>>
>>>> Face it. You'll never know what a piece of research may be worth
>>>> until it has been completed. A lot of it has no practical use. The
>>>> little bits that are worthwhile have changed the world many times.
>>>>
>>>> A LASER can blind you but, if you happen to have age related macular
>>>> degeneration, it might just keep you from going blind.
>>>>
>>>> Where would we be today without Solid State Physics? Building
>>>> computers with vacuum tubes?
>>> Quiz: How many 6AU6s does it take to implement an iPOD?
>>>
>> The figure would be approximately equal to the number of transistors.
>>> Extra credit: how much filament power is required?
>> Several megawatts. I haven't seen a 6AU6 in about 50 years now!
>
> Stop by my house for a beer sometime. I'll show some to you. :-)
>
>> I no
>> longer have the Vacuum Tube Data book and can no longer look up the
>> power requirements.
>
> Yeah, still got them, too.
>
> bill
>

What are you doing with them? Just collecting antiques? The last time
I saw a vacuum tube was several years ago when my wife trash picked a
"Cathedral Radio". She sold it for big bucks to a collector.

Actually, if you count a CRT as a vacuum tube I'm looking at one now.
If it dies before I do, it will be replaced with a flat panel monitor.

Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply schrieb:
> (I think Germany is the only European country with its own
> large particle-accelerator institute (DESY).)

This is not quite true (anymore).
The high energy physics at DESY has been shutdown.
There are, however, other large accelerators,
e.g. at GSI, or in France at Ganil.
Although not quite the size of LHC, their research is much more
diversified, and sometimes even includes practical aspects such as
innovative radiotherapy.
>
> For GR, yes. For SR, anytime relativistic velocities are involved, you
> need it. I think there are commercial or at least medical instruments
> which involve particles moving at relativistic velocities.

Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours

AEF schrieb:
>
> Basic research is important. Even relativity (both special and
> general) has a commercial use; namely, GPS. I think that’s the only
> commercial use of it; most or all other use is by astrophysicists and
> cosmologists and the like.
>
> The idea that one can build a laser was first brought to light by
> Einstein doing basic research.

What were the costs to develop the theory of relativity ?
It just took a brilliant brain, a pencil and
(probably numerous) sheets of paper.

[OT] LHC costs, was: Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours

In article , Michael Kraemer writes:
> AEF schrieb:
>
>>
>> Basic research is important. Even relativity (both special and
>> general) has a commercial use; namely, GPS. I think that’s the only
>> commercial use of it; most or all other use is by astrophysicists and
>> cosmologists and the like.
>>
>> The idea that one can build a laser was first brought to light by
>> Einstein doing basic research.
>
> What were the costs to develop the theory of relativity ?
> It just took a brilliant brain, a pencil and
> (probably numerous) sheets of paper.
>

But OTOH, for anyone who considers the LHC expensive, consider how many
LHCs you can buy for the cost of the US$85 billion bailout by the US
government.

Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours

In article <6jfekjF32hajU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>In article ,
> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>> In article <6jf3muF31qiqU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>>>In article ,
>>> koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>>>> In article <48d1b9c4$0$12375$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
>>>>> Question about accelerators:
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you have one big 27km loop.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do they inject particles and accelerate the even particles clockwise,
>>>>> and the odd particles counterclockwise, and each side has 13km to
>>>>> accelerate until they hit at the other end of the loop ?
>>>>
>>>> For most of the distance, the loops are not in the same path. Only
>>>> at selected points to the loops cross. That way they know where to
>>>> build the detectors for the results of collisions.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the particales don't collide and most which do kind of glance
>>>> off each other creating uninteresting results. But the few that make
>>>> solid hits provide results never before seen.
>>>
>>>Of what real value and at what cost?
>>>
>> Of what real value was the discovery of the electron ?
>> Though I'll admit the cost of those experiments was rather lower.
>
>The discovery seems to have produced quite a bit of value and, as you
>pointed out, at rather little cost. Back to my original question!
>

But the value wasn't particularly apparent at the time. Though a bit tongue in
cheek Thompson's Colleagues at the Cavendish Lab used to offer the toast
"The electron: may it never be of use to anybody."
See for instancehttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...57C0A961958260

The electron though was definitely the low hanging fruit since it was so
loosely bound in atoms. Knowledge of the construction of the atomic nucleus
(protons and neutrons) has also proved valuable (as also knowledge about
anti-matter eg positrons).

Whether the results from the LHC will contribute to similar future technologies
only time will tell. Though I'd suggest that knowing where MASS comes from and
whether other dimensions exist to mention two possible results might prove
valuable.

>> Democracy - A wolf dying of starvation as a hundred sheep outvote him to
>> choose grass for dinner again.
>
>Bad analogy. The wolf would not starve to death on a diet of grass (or
>at least that is what vegitarians want us carnivores to believe!). He
>probably wouldn't like it, but he could live.
>

On the contrary I would think it highly unlikely that the wolf would survive on
a diet consisting largely of cellulose which not being a ruminant it would not
be able to digest. Note. Human vegetarians eat fruit, grass seeds and leaves
but don't subsist on a diet of grass. Cellulose passes through the human
digestive system intact.

Re: [OT] LHC costs, was: Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly3 hours

Simon Clubley wrote:
> In article , Michael Kraemer writes:
>> AEF schrieb:
>>
>>> Basic research is important. Even relativity (both special and
>>> general) has a commercial use; namely, GPS. I think that’s the only
>>> commercial use of it; most or all other use is by astrophysicists and
>>> cosmologists and the like.
>>>
>>> The idea that one can build a laser was first brought to light by
>>> Einstein doing basic research.
>> What were the costs to develop the theory of relativity ?
>> It just took a brilliant brain, a pencil and
>> (probably numerous) sheets of paper.
>>
>
> But OTOH, for anyone who considers the LHC expensive, consider how many
> LHCs you can buy for the cost of the US$85 billion bailout by the US
> government.
>
> Simon.
>

Consider, instead, the cost of allowing the banking system to collapse!
The U.S. government made that mistake ca. 1930/31. Lo and behold, the
banking system did collapse, leading to the great depression.

Instead, executives who took foolish risks and lost may have to take
jobs managing a hot dog stand! IF they can find jobs!!

Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours

In article ,
"Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article ,
>> "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
>>> Jeff Campbell wrote:
>>>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>>>>> Bob Koehler wrote:
>>>>>> In article <6jf3muF31qiqU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu
>>>>>> (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>>>>>>> Of what real value and at what cost?
>>>>>> Of the same real value of all basic research: you can't predict
>>>>>> ahead of time which will result in practicle results when.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could have asked the same of any research that led to anything
>>>>>> we have now. Or you could go back to 50% child mortality.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Face it. You'll never know what a piece of research may be worth
>>>>> until it has been completed. A lot of it has no practical use. The
>>>>> little bits that are worthwhile have changed the world many times.
>>>>>
>>>>> A LASER can blind you but, if you happen to have age related macular
>>>>> degeneration, it might just keep you from going blind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where would we be today without Solid State Physics? Building
>>>>> computers with vacuum tubes?
>>>> Quiz: How many 6AU6s does it take to implement an iPOD?
>>>>
>>> The figure would be approximately equal to the number of transistors.
>>>> Extra credit: how much filament power is required?
>>> Several megawatts. I haven't seen a 6AU6 in about 50 years now!
>>
>> Stop by my house for a beer sometime. I'll show some to you. :-)
>>
>>> I no
>>> longer have the Vacuum Tube Data book and can no longer look up the
>>> power requirements.
>>
>> Yeah, still got them, too.
>>
>> bill
>>
>
> What are you doing with them? Just collecting antiques?

I have a number of antique radios i still enjoy. I have quite a bit of
tube amateur radio equipment including my first HF rig, an HW-101. It
is really quite funny. Most of my tube radios still work. When I decided
to get back into ham radio I dug out a lot of equipment I hadn't used in
over a decade. Most of the solid-state stuff just flat out didn't work.
Those pieces that did seemed to work for only a short time before failing.
My Drake Twins are working just fine, except for 160M where I think the
crystal has gone bad. None of my HT's work. Only one of my solid-state
HF rigs works and it seems to pick up more interfernece than signals.
And I suspect most of this interference is internal. I can understand
now why true audiophiles still prefer vacuum tubes.
> The last time
> I saw a vacuum tube was several years ago when my wife trash picked a
> "Cathedral Radio". She sold it for big bucks to a collector.

I have watched the prices for antique radios rise a lot over time, I
used to get mine at the Salvation Army Store for $10-$15. Now they go
for hundreds in high class antique shoppes.
>
> Actually, if you count a CRT as a vacuum tube I'm looking at one now.
> If it dies before I do, it will be replaced with a flat panel monitor.

That is the one place I do not have vacuum tubes. All of my computers
have flat panel screens. The only CRT's I still have are in our TV
sets, which with the change to DTV are not long for this world, and
my various osciloscopes. Oh wait, all those VT-220's have CRT's!! Hey,
are we back opn topic now? :-)

Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours

In article , Michael Kraemer writes:
> > (I think Germany is the only European country with its own
> > large particle-accelerator institute (DESY).)
>
> This is not quite true (anymore).
> The high energy physics at DESY has been shutdown.

Wow, you're right. Apparently it has been subsumed into english. It
is even an acceptable word for Scrabble!! :-) Probably necessary as
I doubt any reasonable translation would have been able to carry the
necessary meaning. I guess the only real problem with speaking more
than one language is that when one runs into what appears to be a
mixture one just understands and continues without trying to figure
out what the translation would have been. :-)

Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours

In article <6jhljbF38mskU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill
Gunshannon) writes:
>
> "Bremsstrahlung"? I ownder how many of our readers got that one?

Readers of textbooks on nuclear/atomic physics for example.
It's a traditional term, meaning "deceleration radiation".
It probably survived the 1920s/1930s when German was the
"lingua franca" of quantum physics.
> Kind of like automotive power measured in BPS. (Do they still do
> it that way? I haven't read a good german car rag in decades!)

Do you mean "PS" ? It's still used here and there, but officially
it is kW (kiloWatt). Unfortunately a car performing at 100 PS has
only 75kW (or sth like that),
and this seems to be a problem for the low self-esteem of car-lovers.

Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours

Happened already a couple of years ago.
But it affects only "useless" high energy physics of CERN type,
not DESY altogether. I think they (will) have a new electron
accelerator for X-ray laser studies, structural research and such.

Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours

In article ,m.kraemer@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
> In article <6jhljbF38mskU2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill
> Gunshannon) writes:
>>
>> "Bremsstrahlung"? I ownder how many of our readers got that one?
>
> Readers of textbooks on nuclear/atomic physics for example.
> It's a traditional term, meaning "deceleration radiation".
> It probably survived the 1920s/1930s when German was the
> "lingua franca" of quantum physics.
>
>> Kind of like automotive power measured in BPS. (Do they still do
>> it that way? I haven't read a good german car rag in decades!)
>
> Do you mean "PS" ? It's still used here and there, but officially
> it is kW (kiloWatt). Unfortunately a car performing at 100 PS has
> only 75kW (or sth like that),
> and this seems to be a problem for the low self-esteem of car-lovers.

Indeed. Oppenheimer (despite his German name) studied in Germany. John
Wheeler (who died recently) was fluent in German.
> >> Kind of like automotive power measured in BPS. (Do they still do
> >> it that way? I haven't read a good german car rag in decades!)
> >
> > Do you mean "PS" ? It's still used here and there, but officially
> > it is kW (kiloWatt). Unfortunately a car performing at 100 PS has
> > only 75kW (or sth like that),
> > and this seems to be a problem for the low self-esteem of car-lovers.

If the HP number were lower than the kW number, HP would be gone. Note
that there are different horsepowers around. In Europe, it is 0.75 kW
or 750W. I think the British horse power is different.
> Is PS the same as BPS?
> PS == Pferdestärke == horsepower
> BPS == Bremse Pferdestärke == brake horsepower

Never heard of that!
> I always got a kick out of American car rags using both Horsepower and
> Torque. But their peaks never coincide on the RPM curve.

They are two different things. Normally, the torque peaks at a lower
RPM than the (horse)power. In German, Drehmoment and Leistung.

Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours

On Sep 18, 7:13*pm, Jeff Campbell wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> > Bob Koehler wrote:
> >> In article <6jf3muF31qi...@mid.individual.net>, billg...@cs.uofs.edu
> >> (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> >>> Of what real value and at what cost?
>
> >> * *Of the same real value of all basic research: *you can't predict
> >> * *ahead of time which will result in practicle results when.
>
> >> * *You could have asked the same of any research that led to anything
> >> * *we have now. *Or you could go back to 50% child mortality.
>
> > Face it. *You'll never know what a piece of research may be worth until
> > it has been completed. *A lot of it has no practical use. *The little
> > bits that are worthwhile have changed the world many times.
>
> > A LASER can blind you but, if you happen to have age related macular
> > degeneration, it might just keep you from going blind.
>
> > Where would we be today without Solid State Physics? *Building computers
> > with vacuum tubes?
>
> Quiz: How many 6AU6s does it take to implement an iPOD?
>
> Extra credit: how much filament power is required?
>
> 8-)
>
> 8-)
>
>
>
> > Would you like to consider what your life span might have been if you
> > had been born a hundred and fifty years ago? *No penicilin! No sulfa
> > drugs. No X-Ray, no MRI, no CAT Scan. *Your doctor could very well have
> > known less about the art and science of medicine than you do.
>
> > Sometimes research just suggests a better place to look or a better
> > thing to look for. *It's still worth doing!
>
> ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.pronews.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

And I shutter to think how many 12AX7s it might take. And don't get
me started on 5U4s.

Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours

In article , Michael Kraemer writes:
>
> What were the costs to develop the theory of relativity ?
> It just took a brilliant brain, a pencil and
> (probably numerous) sheets of paper.

There was cost in performing the experiments that led to knowing
we needed Einstein's theory. Not to mention him knowing what his
theory had to explain.

There was cost in performing Columbus' experiement, too. Failed
in his goal to reach the far east by sailing west. Failed
experiments can be vitally important.

Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours

In article ,koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> In article , Michael Kraemer writes:
>>
>> What were the costs to develop the theory of relativity ?
>> It just took a brilliant brain, a pencil and
>> (probably numerous) sheets of paper.
>
> There was cost in performing the experiments that led to knowing
> we needed Einstein's theory. Not to mention him knowing what his
> theory had to explain.
>
> There was cost in performing Columbus' experiement, too. Failed
> in his goal to reach the far east by sailing west. Failed
> experiments can be vitally important.

Now there's a very good comparison. Columbus was a fraud or an idiot
who successfully sold snake oil to the king and queen of Spain. And
that is exactly how I see a lot of what passes for science today except
I have eliminated the possibility that the perps are idiots. (And,
in case your curious, I hold that Columbus was also no idiot. He was
however an exceptional fraud who suckered Spain into financing a
boondogle he knew could not deliver what he promised!!)

Re: OT: The end of the world in roughly 3 hours

On Sep 19, 10:23*am, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
> In article <6jhpjrF3b1d...@mid.individual.net>, billg...@cs.uofs.edu
>
> (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> > > Readers of textbooks on nuclear/atomic physics for example.
> > > It's a traditional term, meaning "deceleration radiation".
> > > It probably survived the 1920s/1930s when German was the
> > > "lingua franca" of quantum physics.
>
> Indeed. *Oppenheimer (despite his German name) studied in Germany. *John
> Wheeler (who died recently) was fluent in German.
>
> > >> Kind of like automotive power measured in BPS. *(Do they still do
> > >> it that way? *I haven't read a good german car rag in decades!)
>
> > > Do you mean "PS" ? It's still used here and there, but officially
> > > it is kW (kiloWatt). Unfortunately a car performing at 100 PS has
> > > only 75kW (or sth like that),
> > > and this seems to be a problem for the low self-esteem of car-lovers.
>
> If the HP number were lower than the kW number, HP would be gone. *Note
> that there are different horsepowers around. *In Europe, it is 0.75 kW
> or 750W. *I think the British horse power is different.
>
> > Is PS the same as BPS?
> > PS == Pferdestärke == horsepower
> > BPS == Bremse Pferdestärke == brake horsepower
>
> Never heard of that!
>
> > I always got a kick out of American car rags using both Horsepower and
> > Torque. *But their peaks never coincide on the RPM curve. *
>
> They are two different things. *Normally, the torque peaks at a lower
> RPM than the (horse)power. *In German, Drehmoment and Leistung.

Power = torque X angular velocity

Imagine applying a torque to something that doesn't turn. That's non-
zero torque but zero horsepower. It's like pushing on a building: you
apply a non-zero force, but the building doesn't move, so you've done
zero work (though your muscles get tired trying to maintain a force!)